AgustaWestland case: This is why CBI wants to question two Governors

The Central Bureau of Investigation or CBI has reportedly asked the Law Ministry if it can question West Bengal Governor MK Narayanan and Goa Governor BV Wanchoo in its investigation into alleged kickbacks in the Rs 3600-crore VVIP helicopter deal.

The government had earlier this month terminated the deal for 12 helicopters alleging that AgustaWestland, the British subsidiary of an Italian company contracted to supply the helicopters for use by the President, Prime Minister and other VIPs had breached an integrity pact by allegedly paying bribes to Indian officials.

CBI sources said Mr Narayanan, who was then the National Security Adviser or NSA and Mr Wanchoo as head of the elite Special Protection Group or SPG, were part of meetings where specifications for the helicopters were changed.

The change in "service ceiling" (or the altitude at which a helicopter can fly) from the 6000 metres suggested Air Head Quarters to 4500 metres had allowed AugustaWestland to enter the race.

So far the CBI has named former Air Chief SP Tyagi, his cousins and several others in its First Information Report or FIR. It has now reportedly written to the Law Ministry and attached documents to show that Mr Narayanan and Mr Wanchoo were part of the team of senior officials who cleared the changes.

As Governors, Mr Narayanan and Mr Wanchoo have legal immunity and the CBI will need the President's assent to question them. However, if the law ministry clears the CBI request, it might not need to seek the President's nod.

Last year, a a detailed investigation by NDTV had revealed that Air Chief Marshal Tyagi wasn't alone in identifying and finalising the Italian Company's name for supply of 12 VVIP helicopters to India.

Records in the government had revealed that several top officials including the Narayanan, Wanchoo, then Defence Secretary Ajai Vikram Singh and current CAG Shashikant Sharma, who was then Joint Secretary (air), were all involved in deciding the specifications that allowed AgustaWestland to enter the competition. A series of at least half a dozen meetings between November 2004 and September 2006 were held at the highest level in the government involving the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), Ministry of Defence (MoD), Representatives of the SPG and the Indian Air Force (IAF) before specifications and technical requirements for procuring the VVIP helicopters were finalised and then a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued. Decisions taken in these meetings in fact allowed AgustaWestland to enter the competition post-2006, our investigations show.

Here's a detailed account of how the case progressed and how at each stage, every stakeholder was involved and how each of them concurred with a collegiate decision.

Nov 8, 2004: Defence Secreatary Ajai Vikram Singh holds a meeting attended by Deputy Chief of IAF, Additional Secretary (Acquisition), Joint Secretary and Acquisition Manager (air), SK Sharma (who went on to become Defence Secretary in 2011 and is now, CAG), OSD, PMO, Director PMO, IGP, SPG among others. SK Sharma informs the meeting that "Air HQ had reviewed the OR (operational requirement) pertaining to mandatory service ceiling of 6,000 metres and came to the conclusion that it would not be feasible to reduce the service ceiling to 4,500 m, as with 4500 m altitude the helicopter would land only at altitudes that were substantially lower. Air HQ advised that it would not be prudent to change the mandatory OR of service from 6,000 metres to 4500 metres."

In response to the Air HQ stand, the PMO representative referred to earlier minutes of the meeting held in the PMO and stated that previous VVIP movements had not exceeded 4500 metres, and hence relevance of 6000 metres as the service ceiling altitude was not clear. He also stated that the views of the PMO were not obtained while finalising the ORs and the aim was to have wider competition for procurement. So the meeting decided that the PMO would give a list of requirements on the aspects relating to safety, security and comfort of VVIPs and also confirmation on the specific need for 6000 metres ceiling, that is use of helicopters at high altitude.

March 1, 2005: NSA MK Narayanan chairs a meeting with Defence Secretary, Secretary (security), Director IB, Director SPG and Deputy Air Chief. The meeting agrees to the following: Since the proposal is to procure helicopters to replace existing Mi-8 helicopters, the ORs should broadly conform to the parameters of Mi-8 which was the most widely used VVIP chopper at that time (This meant the altitude ceiling of 4500 metres was acceptable to PMO since Mi-8's reach was only upto that altitude). Defence Secretary would be convening a meeting with participation of IAF, SPG, Secretary (security) to draw up the operational specifications for the VVIP helicopters in light of the above. A single vendor situation should be avoided.

March 7, 2005: Then Deputy Air Chief convenes a meeting at Air HQ attended by Director SPG, JS and AM (Air), IG, SPG among others. All ORs are deliberated during the meeting. Point eight of the minutes of the meeting says for instance notes: "The earlier OR of 6 km altitude and performance required at 5 km had been reduced to 4.5 km and 2 km respectively to avoid single vendor situation. Both were accepted as mandatory ORs." In other words, every stakeholder agreed to the revised ORs.

March 14, 2005: The revised ORs are approved by the Air Chief, Air Chief Marshal SP Tyagi. The Deputy Air Chief forwards the finalised ORs approved by ACM Tyagi to Special Secretary (Acquisition). The Deputy Chief also writes: "It is felt that with the finalised ORs, a single vendor situation will be avoided." (This is conformity with the PMO's insistence to avoid single vendor situation)

April 1, 2005: Revised ORs are presented to Defence Secretary.

April 15, 2005: Based on discussions with Defence Secretary on the revised ORs, IAF's Assistant Chief of Air Staff , ACAS(plans) forwards the amended ORs to the Joint Secretary and Acquisition Manager (Air) (in this case SK Sharma) stating: "The ORs have now been made specific, to minimise subjectivity."

May 9, 2005: Defence Secretary chairs meeting of all stake holders (Secretary Security, Deputy Air Chief, Joint Secretary Air, IG, SPG among others) and each Operational requirement including altitude, cabin height, security and communication is discussed.

October 7, 2005: Deputy Air Chief director SPG, JS (Air) among others decided to increase number of helicopters from 8 to 12 for operational and security requirements. With the ORs now locked, further discussions take another 11 months before the MoD finally issues RFP.

September 27, 2006: Request for proposal for acquiring 12 VVIP helicopters issued. Three companies including AgustaWestland respond. These companies -- makers of Mi-172, Sikorsky which made the S-92 helicopters and Augusta Westland's AWA101 -- responded to the RFP. Meanwhile the MoD had put in place a new concept -- the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) -- which lays down stringent rules and regulations. Under the DPP all companies that bid for contracts above 100 crore rupees have to sign an integrity pact which binds the companies to give an undertaking that no bribes would be paid or agents would be used in the contracts. The Russian company that makes Mi-172 withdrew from the competition at an early stage refusing to sign the integrity contract! That left AgustaWestland and Sikorsky in the race.

By now this was late 2007. The evaluations and trials of S-92 and AW101 began and continued over the next couple of years (2008-09). According to Air Force sources S-92 was found to be non-compliant on four counts: It could not reach 15000 feet without maximum power Its 'hover out of ground effect' wasn't sufficient Its drift down altitude was not meeting the requirement Missile airborne warning system wasn't up to the mark AgustaWestland with its three engines was a bonus, according to Air Force test pilots since one engine failure still meant it had two to fall back upon.

Sometime in 2009, Air HQ sent its recommendation to the Defence Ministry and after going through all the stringent financial and technical requirements mandatory under the DPP, a contract was signed in February 2010.

India-Japan Ties Strengthen

It is useful to remember that way back in 2006 U.S. President George Bush and Shinzo Abe, then in his first term as Japanese prime minister, each in their own way achieved far-reaching changes in their respective ties with India. While George Bush helped end the nuclear apartheid against India, Abe unambiguously declared (in 2007) that “a strong India is in the best interest of Japan and a strong Japan is in the best interest of India.”

Since then, after the initial euphoria, India-U.S. ties have plummeted perhaps to their lowest level in the past two decades, not least because of the recent Khobragade affair. The relationship between India and Japan, on the other hand, has found new momentum in the past couple of years. It is no surprise to find that Shinzo Abe is at the helm in Tokyo again.

Abe’s visit to New Delhi as Chief Guest for India’s Republic Day Parade on January 26 will in fact cap a series of high-level visits by Japanese leaders over the past few months. This included the historic visit of Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko to India in December 2013. They were returning to the country 53 years after their 1960 trip as the Crown Prince and Princess of Japan. Their symbolic visit apart, the fact is that during the last five years, bilateral trade has increased 80 per cent; currently it is at 18 billion dollars. Although this is nowhere near the India-China bilateral trade figure, which is now inching towards 100 billion dollars, Japan and India have set a goal of $25 billion this year. It must also be remembered that in recent decades, Japan has quietly extended financial and technical support to several  infrastructure projects in India, helping to build metro railway systems and industrial corridors, dedicated freight corridors, highways, bridges and power plants.

Now the two countries are finding new avenues of cooperation. Last week Japan’s Defense Minister Itsonuri Onodera spent four days in India exploring and finalizing various ways to take the fledgling defense cooperation between New Delhi and Tokyo to the next level. Onodera and his Indian Defence Minister AK Antony said at the end of their meeting in New Delhi that India and Japan will “further consolidate and strengthen their strategic and global partnership in the defense arena through measures ranging from regular joint combat exercises and military exchanges to cooperation in anti-piracy, maritime security and counter-terrorism.”

As a first follow up India and Japan will hold their third “2 plus 2″ Dialogue and fourth Defense Policy Dialogue in New Delhi later this year, along with the third bilateral exercise between the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force and Indian Navy to be held in Japanese waters. Two plus two is a dialogue involving both foreign and defense ministry officials. On January 14, a small exercise involving Coast Guard ships from India and Japan was in fact held in the Arabian Sea.

Joint exercises apart, India and Japan are expanding their defense ties in other ways. For instance, the two sides will also conduct “expert exchanges” in counter-terrorism, humanitarian assistance/disaster relief between the Indian Army and Japan Ground Self Defense Force. The possibility of conducting staff talks between Japan Air Self-Defense Force and Indian Air Force as well as professional exchanges of test-pilots, flight safety experts and others is also in the offing.

Unstated in the future road map is the aim to achieve convergence in security matters to counter an increasingly belligerent China bent on asserting itself in long-standing issues with not just India and Japan but with other smaller nations in Asia as well. New Delhi, inherently leery of becoming part of any alliance or bloc, is hoping to create enough synergy with Tokyo and other ASEAN nations to deter China. The rising profile of the Indo-Japanese relationship is certainly an outcome of the collective unease in Asia over what many think is China’s rambunctious behavior.

With tensions exacerbating in the South China Sea and East China Sea, it is natural that all those affected by a rising China would strive to build a “strategic deterrence” against the rapidly expanding PLA Navy. Further efforts to stitch together pan-Asia security architecture to keep China in check may be in the offing given that the U.S. has showed a reluctance to take China on directly, despite its much-discussed pivot or rebalance to Asia. The recent standoff over China’s decision to unilaterally enforce an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea, including the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, appeared to show the limits of U.S. intervention.

In fact, Asian nations may be better off finding their own solutions to the regional disputes. Individually they may not be able to stand up to China’s bullying but together there is a chance to keep China in check. India and Japan, along with South Korea, may have to take the lead in this respect. Nothing rattles China more than other nations “ganging up” on it. It is worth recalling what happened during Exercise Malabar, 2007. Normally a bilateral naval exercise between India and U.S., that year, for the first and last time, it also involved the Singaporean, Australian and Japanese navies. Beijing, sensing an anti-China naval platform in the making, promptly issued a demarche to all five participants. Since then, Exercise Malabar has reverted to being a bilateral venture.

Those days of humoring China may now be over, at least judging by the way Abe has been reshaping Japan’s foreign and defense policies in recent months. A new document, prepared by a group of experts that Abe had appointed, has suggested Japan “strengthen its own capabilities and expand its own roles” by bolstering its antimissile defenses and its ability to defend the freedom of navigation in its surrounding seas, a reference to the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute with China. As Japan beefs up its defenses against China, both New Delhi and Tokyo seem to have decided to reenergize their relationship to ensure a strategic balance in Asia. India inviting Abe as Chief Guest for the Republic Day Parade – an honor normally reserved for its closest allies – is a clear signal that Asia’s two biggest democracies may be ready to work together in containing if not confronting China in the years to come.

http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/india-japan-ties-strengthen/

Letting the soldier down: Reality of India

This is the last thing I or any student of Indian military should be writing on the happy occasion of Army Day but wherever I go these days I am picking up signals of disgruntlement among the middle and senior lot for denial of basic courtesy and dues to them.

I am talking about non extension of what is called Non Functional Upgradation granted to Organized Group A Services, IPS and IFS but not to equivalent officers of the three armed forces. It needs a bit of explanation.

What is Non-Functional Upgradation? 

The 6th Pay Commission, granted in 2008, decreed that whenever any IAS Officer or an officer of the joint cadre is posted at the Centre to a particular grade carrying a grade pay in Pay Bands 3 or 4, the officers belonging to batches of Organised Group A services, senior by two years or more but have not been promoted so far to that particular grade would be granted the same grade on a 'non-functional' basis from the date of posting of the IAS officers in that grade at the Centre.

This has benefited Officers of services, like MES Civil Officers, BRO (Border Roads Organisation) Civil Officers, IPS Officers in BSF, CRPF, ITBP, Defence Accts (IDAS), Test Audit (IA&AS), Ordnance Factory Board.  They now get the salary and grade pay of Joint Secretary or a Major General (Grade Pay Rs 10000) in 22 years of service, and will draw the pay of Additional Secretary to Government of India which is equal to a Lieutenant General (Grade Pay Rs 12000/-) after 32 years of service. Curiously, officers from Uniformed Services have been denied this perk. 

The non-implementation of NFU for the three services has adversely effected organizational command and control in multi-cadre environment where the civilians and military officers work together. It has also led to lowering of status of military officer vis-à-vis organized Group A officers and IPS Officers.  

For example, organised Group A and IPS Officers reach HAG (Higher Administrative Grade) Scale after 32 years while only 0.2 percent of  Armed Forces Officers ever reach that stage.   Traditionally, since Independence, there has been a broad parity between the IPS Group A officers of Civil Services and the Defence Services Officers which has been acknowledged by different Pay Commissions in their reports.  In such a case, the differential behavior not only disturbs the financial parity, it pushes down the Defence services in status as even direct recruit officers of Group B services attain a better pay and promotional avenue and manage to reach the level of Joint Secretary/Major General before retiring.

This has led to huge resentment among the military officers. The three service chiefs pushed for implementing the NFU for the military officers and took the matter to the Prime Minister but as usual, the bureaucracy shot it down. The Ministry of Defence rejected the idea twice with following comments :-

(a) The service conditions of Armed Forces are quite different when compared to civilian employees.

(b) Ample benefits in the form of MSP (Military Service Pay) and various allowances are available to Armed Forces officers.

(c) Govt orders are for Orgnaised Group A Service and Armed Forces do not have such set up.

Service HQs have however pointed out the following in support of extending the NFU for the military.

Terms and Conditions. The terms and conditions of Armed Forces officers are more stringent and harsher than Officers of Organised Group ‘A’ Services.  Therefore, there are more reasons to extend non functional upgradation to Armed Forces officers.

Military Service Pay (MSP) The stand of all CPCs from the 3rd CPC onwards on the Armed Forces was to have an edge over Central Govt Employees to compensate them for their peculiar hardships.  And this EDGE has been granted by the Govt at the 6th CPC stage in form of the Military Service Pay.  This explicitly implies that Armed Forces must have parity first and MSP over and above it.

AND YET, THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CONTINUES TO TREAT THE MILITARY WITH CONTEMPT.

THE CONDITION OF THE EX-SERVICEMEN IS WORSE. THE MoD's DEPARTMENT OF EX-SERVICEMEN WELFARE HAS DEALT A SEVERE BLOW TO THE VETERANS AS DETAILED HERE BY NAVDEEP SINGH (http://www.indianmilitary.info/2014/01/army-day-republic-day-gift-from.html)

As we celebrate the bravery, sacrifice and commitment of the soldier to the nation on the occasion of the 66th Army Day, we are also confronted with the fact that the NATION AND ESPECIALLY THE BUREAUCRACY ONLY CONTINUES TO HOLD THE MILITARY IN CONTEMPT. SAD BUT TRUE.

The two Vs together! INS Viraat & Vikramaditya: High Quality Video & Pictures

High Quality video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olJopSrK0O0&feature=youtu.be

Indian journo, writing on India-Pakistan issue in a Chinese newspaper. A first for me!

Christmas eve meeting first step toward resuming India-Pakistan dialogue

 

(http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/835886.shtml#.UsoI0vuMBss)

Global Times | 2014-1-5 23:03:02 By Nitin A Gokhale

Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

As the world welcomes the New Year, Indian and Pakistani armies may want to leave behind the bad memories of 2013.

 It was by far the worst year on the Line of Control (LOC), the de facto border between the two countries in a decade since they put in place a "cease-fire" in November 2003.

Starting from mid-January 2013, India and Pakistan witnessed a series of armed border skirmishes.

India said unprovoked Pakistani firing breached the cease-fire at least 200 times through 2013.

As charges and counter-charges flew thick and fast, the prime ministers of the two countries met in New York in September on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh kept his appointment with Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif despite fierce and vocal opposition back home following an attack on an Indian Army base and a police station in Jammu by Pakistan-based terrorists that killed 10 people including an Indian Army lieutenant colonel just three days before they were to meet.

By all accounts it was a simple, business-like encounter.

One positive outcome, however, was both agreed to lower the temperature.

As a start, they decided that the generals of the two border armies would meet and find ways to restore the decade-old cease-fire.

It took three months for them to sit across a table.

They eventually met at Wagah when India's Director General Military Operations (DGMO) Lieutenant General Vinod Bhatia travelled across the LOC to confer with Pakistan Army DGMO Major General Aamer Riaz.

The Christmas eve meeting was the first in 14 years.

Their predecessors had met in the immediate aftermath of the Kargil conflict in 1999. 

A joint statement issued at the end of the three-hour-long meeting indicated a thaw in the making.

"Both sides reiterated resolve and commitment to continue efforts for ensuring a cease-fire, peace and tranquility on the Line of Control," the statement said.

Both sides agreed on "reenergizing the existing mechanisms" for resolving complaints of violations and making hotline contact more effective.

They would talk to each other on the telephone once a week.

Two flag meetings between sector commanders on the ground are likely to take place soon to carry forward decisions at the top military level.

In the larger context of fraught India-Pakistan relations, this meeting is a first step toward regaining confidence in each other.

Since 2008 in the wake of the terrorist attack on India's commercial capital Mumbai that killed 166 people, in which  Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists were involved, New Delhi and Islamabad have struggled to keep dialogue open.

India wants Pakistan to bring to book the masterminds of the Mumbai attack including Jamaat-ud-Dawa leader Hafiz Saeed, still based in Pakistan.

For various reasons however, Pakistan has not been able to take any tangible action on that front.

For the Indian leadership, accused by many of being soft on Pakistan despite the Mumbai attack, it is difficult to resume dialogue with Pakistan unless Sharif takes visible action.

It was perhaps in this context that the Pakistani director general of military operations invited his Indian counterpart for that critical December 24 dialogue.

Now it is up to the political leadership to take the process forward, but with India slipping into election season and the current government seemingly on the back foot because of a series of corruption scandals and electoral reverses in recent provincial polls, any serious progress in India-Pakistan relations is unlikely until the next government takes charge in summer.

Till then, a peaceful border between the two countries is all that one can hope and pray for.

The author is security & strategic affairs editor with Indian Broadcaster, NDTV. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

INS Vikramaditya comes home, escorted by Western Fleet ships--some amazing photos

Some might call it tokenism but for the first time after 1992, two Indian aircraft carriers are operating in tandem. 

The Vikramaditya escorted by part of Western Fleet

As INS Vikramaditya, acquired from Russia in November entered the Indian Navy’s area of operation in north western Arabian Sea, it had for the first time, the older and smaller aircraft carrier, INS Viraat along side it.

Viraat and other ships of the Western Fleet which had sailed from their base in Mumbai. RVed--rendezvoused in naval parlance--with Vikramaditya on Saturday.

In the Arabian Sea

INS Vikramaditya, which was commissioned into the Indian Navy on November 16 last at the Sevmash shipyard in North Russia' Severodvinsk, is now headed for its home port at Karwar in Karnataka where it is scheduled to reach in a week’s time. 

Throughout its long journey INS Vikramaditya has been accompanied by INS Trikand, a Talwar class frigate, INS Delhi a Delhi class destroyer and INS Deepak, the fleet tanker.

Fleet commander of the Western Fleet, Rear Admiral Anil Chawla, led the flotilla of the Western Fleet, that also comprised INS Viraat, besides two Delhi class destroyers, three Trishul class stealth frigates, a Godavari class frigate and a couple of offshore vessels. 

After reaching Karwar some time next week, the aircraft carrier is expected to begin its weapons and air fleet integration. The air wing consists of  30 Mig 29K aircraft and six Kamov helicopters.

 

ALL PHOTOS: INDIAN NAVY

North-East Standard Time?

Assam Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi in his customary New Year's Day interaction with the media on Thursday apparently said the state will start following a standard time that is one hour ahead of the Indian Standard Time (IST). Chai Bagan or tea garden time used to be prevalent in Assam till very recently. it improved efficiency, saved electricity and let people lead a lifestyle that suited the region.  Then, along the way that practice was discontinued. Now there seems to be a renewed interest in implementing a separate time zone which many of us had fondly nick-named NEST (North-East Standard Time). An idea who's time has finally come? One doesn't know. But below is an article I had an occasion to write for Outlook in 2000. Read on.

(http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?209170)

In all the hype surrounding the 1999 year-end, Katchal in the Andamans was where everyone headed to see the millennium's first sunrise. Little did anyone know that in a remote hamlet called Dong in Arunachal Pradesh, the sun rose a good 15 minutes before it did in Katchal. And this isn't the only instance of ignorance about the Northeast. 

Cricket matches have been taking place in Guwahati for 20 years now, but it took the Sri Lankan Ranjan Madugalle to recognise the fact that the Northeast perhaps needs a separate standard time. On November 14 last year, during the fourth one-day between India and New Zealand at Guwahati's Nehru Stadium, he took the decision to begin play 15 minutes early and curtailed the lunch break to 30 minutes to gain most of the short daylight hours. Sure enough, Guwahati for the first time saw a 100-overs match since it began hosting one-dayers. 

The fact is: the Indian Standard Time (IST), based on the local time at Allahabad, just doesn't hold good for the Northeast. Being the easternmost part of the country, sunrise as well as sunset here is a good one hour early than the so-called 'mainland'. Says filmmaker Jahnu Baruah: "There are several reasons why the Northeast must have a separate time zone. Bangladesh, which is west of India's Northeast, is six hours ahead of gmt while IST is five-and-a-half hours ahead. By applying the IST we in the Northeast are losing precious daylight working hours." 

Succinctly said. As Baruah points out, a farmer in the Northeast is up and about by 4.30 am IST since the sunlight is visible by about 5 am. "His counterpart in Gujarat however does not get up before 6 am since sunrise in that part of the country is nearly an hour after it's hit the Northeast." 

In short, the Northeast is ready for work a good 60 minutes earlier than the 'mainland', but because it has to abide by the IST, most of the region does not begin work before 10 am IST which in reality is 11 am under what can be termed a North East Standard Time (NEST)! In other words, nearly two precious 'peak-efficiency' hours are lost because of the standard practice of having a common standard time for the entire country irrespective of the geographical reality. 

It wasn't always so. The British, ever so particular about maximum output in their commercial ventures, had a "local time" set one hour ahead of the IST for operations in the tea gardens, coal mines and the oil industry of Assam. Reminisces Shantikam Hazarika, who's worked in the oil industry and is currently director of the Assam Institute of Management: "In the oil sector, we used to apply 'local time' till 1973. It made sense since solar time at 5.30 am IST in Assam was like 6.30 am in Madras and about 7 am in Bombay. Moreover, because of this practice the administrative offices in the oil sector worked in tandem with the shift hours. Unfortunately, that practice was abolished for some reason." 

The oil sector may have abandoned the practice but some tea companies still follow what they call "bagan (garden) time" set an hour ahead of the IST. Among the most notable example is The Assam Tea Company, the world's first tea company. Points out K.R. Bhagat, a 30-year veteran here: "We still follow the old pattern. It ensures maximum utilisation of the daylight hours." So in the Maijan tea estate, workers are on the job by 5 am IST which by bagan timing is 6 am. Work continues till 4 pm IST. Likewise, the army's administrative units in the Northeast begin work at 7.30 am IST and finish by 1.30 pm IST."This," says a senior officer, "ensures that we get adequate time to play outdoor games like golf, tennis or football." 

Such timely considerations, however, seem to have entirely bypassed the state governments in the region. Says Hazarika: "By NEST logic, we should have office hours beginning 8 am IST but no office here begins before 10 am IST. It's all right to have time zones in an advanced country like the US, but people here may be averse to the idea." As businessman Basant Surana says: "Since most of our transactions are with the rest of the country a separate time might require a lot of adjustments." 

Others disagree. Says an IAS officer, not willing to be named: "In a region where there's no work culture, it makes no difference whether you have a separate time zone. Since people do not value time, NEST or no NEST, they will continue to shirk work." Adds another bureaucrat: "As it is, separatist tendencies are predominant in the region. If we give them a separate time zone, it would be like recognising the region as distinct from the rest of the country." 

But the clinching argument in favour of NEST is the amount of energy it'll save. Says R.N. Kalita, senior NF Railway official: "By starting early, we can maximise our work efficiency and save on electricity by closing offices early. A lot of individual energy could go into more fruitful endeavours. At the moment, people in the Northeast don't even know what dusk is since we pass into night straight after day." He's right since dusk in terms of fading light is between 3.30 and 4.15 pm IST in the Northeast. Clearly, the benchmark set by Delhi-centric authorities does not apply to the Northeast.